I just came across an interesting article titled "The Place of Buddhism in Indian Thought" by Ananda Guruge.

In it, he refutes these four statements which various historians have made about Buddhism:"(I) that the Buddha restated what was already current among the Brahmanical thinkers of the Indian subcontinent;(2) that the Buddha based his teachings on the teachings of the Upaniads;(3) that the Buddha was a follower of the Yoga system of Patañjali; and(4) that the Buddha's doctrine derives its inspiration from the Snkhya Philosophy."

Which part of the article do you object to, Enochian? Do you disagree with this claim, for instance?

the contributions to Indian thought made by the Buddha should be carefully borne in mind. It was no doubt the Buddha's admirable sense of humility, which led to his statement that he was not an original thinker. His theory of Dependent Causation or Origination was the most remarkable contribution to Indian thought. It is unique in the history of philosophy.

As Luke said, the author of the piece is *refuting* four ways to make the claim that Buddhism is in continuity with what we now understand as Hindu thought.

Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

Luke wrote:I just came across an interesting article titled "The Place of Buddhism in Indian Thought" by Ananda Guruge.

In it, he refutes these four statements which various historians have made about Buddhism:"(I) that the Buddha restated what was already current among the Brahmanical thinkers of the Indian subcontinent;(2) that the Buddha based his teachings on the teachings of the Upaniads;(3) that the Buddha was a follower of the Yoga system of Patañjali; and(4) that the Buddha's doctrine derives its inspiration from the Snkhya Philosophy."

I was wondering about the Patanjali Yoga Sutras' connection to Buddhism, myself - as I had been working on them for a Yoga blog last year. (I really ought to finish that thread of blog, but...)

I kept going 'OOH! This is similar to Buddhism' and 'Oh, because of my Buddhist studies, I know what this guy is on about, here'. I think that if I had not got an understanding of Buddhism behind me, the Patanjali sutras would be very difficult for me to understand, but Buddhism was like a 'key' to interpreting them!

So I am interested to discover which came first and the rest of the story!

K.R. Norman and R.F. Gombrich have mentioned that scholars have often missed the connection of the discourses in the Nikāyas to the Upaniṣads “…it is hard to see why almost all writers about Buddhism accept the statement often made that the Buddha makes no mention of the Upaniṣadic concept of a Universal Self, an ātman or Brahman.” [A Philological Approach to Buddhism – Norman, 1997] “Some of the great modern scholars of Buddhism have said that the Buddha had no direct knowledge of the Vedic texts, but this is certainly wrong. … For many years I have tried to show in my teaching and lecturing that the Buddha presented central parts of his message, concerning kamma and the tilakkhaṇa, as a set of antitheses to brahminical doctrine.” [Recovering the Buddha’s Message – Gombrich, 1988

Ananda Guruge, attempted to correct the overreaching of early writers on Buddhism who claimed that the Buddha was influenced by and taught the aims of the Upaniṣads, by claiming that the Buddha and his followers did not understand the complex emanation theories of the Upaniṣads, and simply knew of the god Brahmā and ātman ‘as a psychological and merely individual factor.’ But this misses the language in the pāḷi texts which point directly to key phrases and concepts of the universal self in the Upaniṣads.

In the Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN.22), the Buddha framed a discussion with bhikkhus on a set of ‘six positions on views’ (chayimāni … diṭṭhiṭṭhānāni) that were held by the untaught commoner (assutavā puthujjano), and through this discussion leveled a sweeping refutation of the of the Upaniṣadic theory of Ātman, Brahman Absolute or ‘The All is Brahman … this self of mine in the heart, that is Brahman’ ‘sarvam khalv idaṃ brahma … eṣa ma ātmāntar hṛdaye etad brahma’ (CU. III, 14:1 & 4). MN.22 was specifically punning on Yājñavalkya’s view in Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, IV, 5.6.

With reference to this case example and others, K.R. Norman and R.F. Gombrich have soundly argued that the Buddha and his followers were well aware of the brāhmaṇa culture of the time, and that the attā he was refuting as nonexistent (asat) is the dogma of ātman just as we find it in the Upaniṣads.